RandomSoccerFan
GOLD
"Veritas"? Come on - it's obvious to all you're pulling these out of your ass to weakly support what you want to be true.
5 biological men roster wins Australian women's soccer league title & also undefeated this season
- Thread starter Veritas
- Start date
Odds are significantly greater that it will be a relative, and not a drag queen. Just saying.
I've read what the facts are. I researched it from multiple sources and know what the bill says. I've never been to "Truth Social", either, but I love how you liberal idiots think republicans can't do their own homework. Join the dots? Russia has always interfered in our elections and we've interfered in theirs. What's your point? You're the people calling others "election deniers" and forget Hillary went on CNN and denied the election.
Here's something else I researched. You might find it very sobering. 75% of Americans think we're on the wrong path with the Pedo in Chief and Heels Up Hyena in charge. 75%. That may be on Truth Social, but it's also on ABC News and dozens of other sources. Are you the 25%?
Heading into 2024, most Americans believe country headed in the wrong direction: POLL
A year before the presidential election, three-quarters of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, according to a new ABC News/Ipsos poll.
abcnews.go.com
What makes you think I'm a father that trusts a relative? I'm not disagreeing with you. It could also be a coach, a teacher, a priest, a babysitter, etc. I'm not willing to wake up one morning and say it's suddenly okay for men to use the women's restroom. There's always some level of risk when your kid is unsupervised, but when Jack Black puts on a chiffon dress and walks around in public, that doesn't spell "sane" to me at all.
If Jack wants to put in a full day at work and then go home, put on a moo-moo, wig and dance to Lady Gaga songs in the mirror, that's his business. When he wants to pretend he's Jane and use the women's bathroom, that's an issue and should be.
Come on man. So you are trying to tell me that the universe gets it wrong 1/10 times. No way I believe that. I know just going back to highschool and having around 1000 kids in my class where only about 10 came out gay. Not 100
I’m not saying it’s wrong to be gay but it’s not natural to this universe as 10%. There is zero evidence that evolution meant to create lgbtq 
people naturally as the main purpose of mammals is to procreate and keep the species alive. That’s not happening in the lgbtq community. If that was the norm we would be extinct as a species
Another word for indoctrinated is, "Groomed." Children, yes children can now have private conversations with their teacher about sex, their private parts and so much more without telling mom or dad. Now they & them think it's ok for a grown man in a dress following our daughters in the bathroom. It's not illegal to use any bathroom of your choosing in the state of CA, unless you're harassing someone. The little girl and her father think the man in a dress with a beard is harassing the 10-year-old female while the MTF thinks the little girl is being a bigot because her father taught her to be careful when you enter a bathroom. I always let me my little girl go ahead and use the bathroom as I stood out waiting. If I saw a wolf in sheep's clothing go in, I would say, "halt, who goes there?" The wolf and I would have eye contact, and I would say very confidently the wolf would listen.I agree that there are legit people born that way as the stats say it for the previous gens. But it’s more than likely less than 1% are born and the other 19% have been indoctrinated by our progressive government. You can’t deny the numbers… ask the Obamas
Actually..... the selfish gene theory is that (particularly as there is a higher incidence the lower birth order you go) that it does that to ensure there are others to look after the herd while not propagating in competition to the core genes. We also know from the apes that sexuality does in facct tend to be fluid, with there being both transgendered apes exhibiting behavior in the opposite gender, as well as apes that are willing to experiment with different types of intercourse (particularly if they are low T). Where you tend not to see it is with the alphas, which would also make sense under the selfish gene theory. That also makes it hard to count but up to 1/5 males seems to experiment at various points, given they have no access to females, but where there preference is is very hard to tell since they are apes and most can't talk. Sex seems > reproduction.Come on man. So you are trying to tell me that the universe gets it wrong 1/10 times. No way I believe that. I know just going back to highschool and having around 1000 kids in my class were only about 10 came out gay. Not 100
If people realized how much of everything is innate to our genes, and how much we are puppets to them, their heads would truly explode.
To be honest, I missed the stump humping part. I often skip chapters of your novels. Nothing personal.
When you didn't deny doing homework on tablets made of stone, I thought there might be a chance.
Karlton Athletic
SILVER
So why are you mad about it?
Who said I'm mad? I feel sorry for morons that put tampons in the boy's bathroom. They're the same morons that say males can menstruate and give birth. Honestly, I feel sorry for them, because they're mentally ill. More importantly, I feel sorry for society because those people vote and shouldn't.
Are you just going to recite the entire movie?
"Joey, do you like hanging out in gymnasiums?"
Ohh Grace
I now see where you're coming from, but I think there's a bit of a stretch happening here when we try to apply The Selfish Gene Theory to this discussion. Let’s remember what the theory is really about: survival of genes, not survival of social trends. Dawkins didn’t write his book to explain why we have cultural movements, Grace... he wrote it to explain how genes keep themselves alive and kicking. The theory is all about ensuring that genes survive and thrive through reproduction and not about making sure 20% of the population decides not to reproduce at all 
.You mentioned that maybe some people are genetically wired to take care of others in the "herd" without competing to pass on their own genes, which I can follow to an extent. But let's be honest here Grace, if nearly 1 in 5 people stop reproducing altogether, that’s not helping the herd survive. In fact, that’s taking a pretty big chunk of the population out of the gene pool entirely. If genes are really pulling the strings, they wouldn’t be saying, "Hey, let’s get a whole bunch of us to stop reproducing so we can watch over the rest." Right?? That doesn’t add up. The theory’s whole premise is about maximizing the chance that those genes get passed on, and that means more reproduction & not less.
Now, about the apes. Yes, some apes do quirky things when they’re isolated, stressed, or just don’t have access to females. But the thing is, they are Apes Grace, Animals not sitting around pondering their sexual identity or picking a new gender. They’re reacting to their environment, and when they finally get access to females again, you don’t see them continuing to experiment with the same sex. It’s situational, not a natural preference, and more importantly, it's not a model we can base human sexuality on. We’re a little more complex than that, and while we can learn from animal behavior, it’s not a perfect mirror for human society.
As for the historical references like the Romans and their habits, I’ll give you that some cultures were more permissive about same sex behavior. But again, that's cultural, not genetic. The fact that Romans indulged in certain behaviors doesn’t prove that it’s all innate. It just shows that societal norms can have a big impact on how people behave. Just because Romans didn’t care much about who was sleeping with whom doesn’t mean that 10% of their population was biologically programmed to prefer same sex relationships. The difference in numbers across various cultures actually supports my point Grace...it’s largely about how society frames these behaviors.
So, while I agree that some of our behavior is influenced by genetics, the massive uptick in LGBTQ identification today seems more driven by external factors such as social media, social trends, and progressive government policies rather than by a sudden shift in our genes. If The Selfish Gene Theory were really running the show, the last thing it would want is 20% of the population taking itself out of the reproductive game. That’s just not how genetic survival works. So, sure Grace there’s some fluidity in humans and apes, but to the extent we’re seeing today? SMH That’s a different story, and it’s not one written by our DNA.
Karlton Athletic
SILVER
So you haven’t read the bill… come on, you can do it. I believe in you. Break free from the bubble and actually find out what it says, not what Russian troll farms tell you it says.
Do Apes have MTFs?Ohh Grace
You mentioned that maybe some people are genetically wired to take care of others in the "herd" without competing to pass on their own genes, which I can follow to an extent. But let's be honest here Grace, if nearly 1 in 5 people stop reproducing altogether, that’s not helping the herd survive. In fact, that’s taking a pretty big chunk of the population out of the gene pool entirely. If genes are really pulling the strings, they wouldn’t be saying, "Hey, let’s get a whole bunch of us to stop reproducing so we can watch over the rest." Right?? That doesn’t add up. The theory’s whole premise is about maximizing the chance that those genes get passed on, and that means more reproduction & not less.
Now, about the apes. Yes, some apes do quirky things when they’re isolated, stressed, or just don’t have access to females. But the thing is, they are Apes Grace, Animals not sitting around pondering their sexual identity or picking a new gender. They’re reacting to their environment, and when they finally get access to females again, you don’t see them continuing to experiment with the same sex. It’s situational, not a natural preference, and more importantly, it's not a model we can base human sexuality on. We’re a little more complex than that, and while we can learn from animal behavior, it’s not a perfect mirror for human society.
As for the historical references like the Romans and their habits, I’ll give you that some cultures were more permissive about same sex behavior. But again, that's cultural, not genetic. The fact that Romans indulged in certain behaviors doesn’t prove that it’s all innate. It just shows that societal norms can have a big impact on how people behave. Just because Romans didn’t care much about who was sleeping with whom doesn’t mean that 10% of their population was biologically programmed to prefer same sex relationships. The difference in numbers across various cultures actually supports my point Grace...it’s largely about how society frames these behaviors.
So, while I agree that some of our behavior is influenced by genetics, the massive uptick in LGBTQ identification today seems more driven by external factors such as social media, social trends, and progressive government policies rather than by a sudden shift in our genes. If The Selfish Gene Theory were really running the show, the last thing it would want is 20% of the population taking itself out of the reproductive game. That’s just not how genetic survival works. So, sure Grace there’s some fluidity in humans and apes, but to the extent we’re seeing today? SMH That’s a different story, and it’s not one written by our DNA.
Actually....there'd been a radical decline in fertility for the younger millenials and the zers. Also incidents of males with low testosterone (so-called beta males) seem to be rising. Further, there seems to be an increasing disconnected between men and women with women delaying pregnancy later and later and more men becoming incels (indeed, more than trans individuals, incels seem to be the prevalent factor in school shootings including the latest one in Georgia). We have a beta male problem....why? The rising trend in LGBTQ identification goes alone with that trend....BTW that B is the tricky factor which seems most susceptible to societal norms. If you look at the trend in Romans who were exclusively G v. B, the number was much lower...whether this was because of machismo norms or because of something in the society who knows....there are few apes that are G or T...1/5 that have experimented with B. But something is afoot, especially if you read dating twitter. Lots of women complaining about low T men and wondering why all of a sudden they are in their late 30s without a husband. Lots of incel men complaining they can't get a gal. Something's up with the selfish gene.Ohh Grace
You mentioned that maybe some people are genetically wired to take care of others in the "herd" without competing to pass on their own genes, which I can follow to an extent. But let's be honest here Grace, if nearly 1 in 5 people stop reproducing altogether, that’s not helping the herd survive. In fact, that’s taking a pretty big chunk of the population out of the gene pool entirely. If genes are really pulling the strings, they wouldn’t be saying, "Hey, let’s get a whole bunch of us to stop reproducing so we can watch over the rest." Right?? That doesn’t add up. The theory’s whole premise is about maximizing the chance that those genes get passed on, and that means more reproduction & not less.
Now, about the apes. Yes, some apes do quirky things when they’re isolated, stressed, or just don’t have access to females. But the thing is, they are Apes Grace, Animals not sitting around pondering their sexual identity or picking a new gender. They’re reacting to their environment, and when they finally get access to females again, you don’t see them continuing to experiment with the same sex. It’s situational, not a natural preference, and more importantly, it's not a model we can base human sexuality on. We’re a little more complex than that, and while we can learn from animal behavior, it’s not a perfect mirror for human society.
As for the historical references like the Romans and their habits, I’ll give you that some cultures were more permissive about same sex behavior. But again, that's cultural, not genetic. The fact that Romans indulged in certain behaviors doesn’t prove that it’s all innate. It just shows that societal norms can have a big impact on how people behave. Just because Romans didn’t care much about who was sleeping with whom doesn’t mean that 10% of their population was biologically programmed to prefer same sex relationships. The difference in numbers across various cultures actually supports my point Grace...it’s largely about how society frames these behaviors.
So, while I agree that some of our behavior is influenced by genetics, the massive uptick in LGBTQ identification today seems more driven by external factors such as social media, social trends, and progressive government policies rather than by a sudden shift in our genes. If The Selfish Gene Theory were really running the show, the last thing it would want is 20% of the population taking itself out of the reproductive game. That’s just not how genetic survival works. So, sure Grace there’s some fluidity in humans and apes, but to the extent we’re seeing today? SMH That’s a different story, and it’s not one written by our DNA.